Wi-Fi Piggybacking Widespread 459
BaCa sent in this article about stealing network access that opens, "Sophos has revealed new research into the use of other people's Wi-Fi networks to piggyback onto the internet without payment. The research shows that 54 percent of computer users have admitted breaking the law, by using someone else's wireless internet access without permission." Of course, online polls being what they are, the results are hardly a plank for a full investigation, but a good share of the answerers did 'fess up to it as well.
I agree its wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see why this is a problem (Score:2, Interesting)
I fail to understand why this is illegal. I know that there is the argument that "you wouldn't go into their house if it the door was open and steal something!". Well no, I wouldn't. However, this being a technology issue (and a fairly recent one at that) I think it needs to be held to a different standard.
If you fail to secure your network that tells me you don't care if people access it, and I think you should be allowed to share your access if you feel like it. I'm no computer genius... I couldn't get Ubuntu to run on my laptop (I can't believe I just admitted that on Slashdot, please don't stone me), but I was able to secure down my network just fine without any problems at all.
Now, if you do something illegal WHILE accessing someones network, then yes you should be held accountable. But just accessing an open network to browse the news or check emails should be a non-issue. Don't we have drunk drivers and murderers and such to deal with instead?
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stealing? Or Sharing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually agree with you.. mind you, I also believe squatting laws in the UK are awesome [insomnia.org].
I leave my connection open... (Score:5, Interesting)
I leave my connection open and my SSID reads "Use but dont abuse". At any given time, there are 10 MAC addresses in my DHCP log (I have 4 devices total). From what I can tell, NO ONE abuses the connection. One person (my elderly neighbor) uses it to email her kids and grandkids. What's wrong with that? I always have the bandwidth I need, and will continue to leave it open. By the way, only one other AP in this area is open. It's SSID is: Linksys.
One other closed AP has the SSID: "Free Ride Is Over".
I live in a community. Leaving my AP open benefits others within my community without adversely affecting me.Re:I just read that news article with permission. (Score:3, Interesting)
In order to keep it quiet they simply made the man pay a $500.00 fine and 30 days community service but he still has a FELONY conviction on his record for checking his email.
These are the laws bought and paid for by your local telephone and Cable companies. They will be coming to all the other states soon so the rest of you can feel as safe as we do here in Michigan.
Re:Is this really breaking the law? (Score:3, Interesting)
this isn't theft, it's the first functioning commons.
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stealing? Or Sharing? (Score:2, Interesting)
The netgear router eventually died, and my linksys replacement is also run unprotected, except it's named after my band's name. Only rarely do I see people logged on to the network. They know the music sucks without even listening to it!
That being said, as someone who willingly shares his network connection, I have no issues logging onto any available wi-fi point I can find: regardless if it's open intentionally or not. My only complaint is that most people choose to have their networks closed off. I guess to most users it is only an issue of security. Spirit of sharing? blah. Even though you are paying for something that you only ever use sporadically, sharing is a no-no. IPs must be very happy about how human nature interprets this particular topic.
Imagine is EVERYONE shared? ha! We'd have a full blown democracy! Or communism, if you are a pure capitalist.
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stealing? Or Sharing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hey, who let a socially responsible person post to this discussion? Didn't we ban such people from slashdot?
As a few others have pointed out, the wifi spectrum was intentionally made open for everyone to use. The intent was a Public Good: a wireless network capability that was available to anyone (or at least anyone with standards-compliant equipment).
But it seems we have a lot of people here who are profoundly anti-open-communication, and think that people who caught communicating openly should be punished. This strikes me as a rather perverse misinterpretation of what the wifi spectrum was all about. In the US, it's also against the whole idea of the First Amendment.
We should be arguing: If you don't believe in using the wifi spectrum for free, open communication, then you shouldn't be using it. Pay for a license to use your own block of restricted spectrum. Go away and don't bother those of us who want a small chunk of spectrum to remain a Public Good.
We also need more people complaining that they want their AP open, and they object to official harassment of people using the wifi spectrum as it was designed to be used. Would that get the message across? Or would the officials just start harassing those of us running open APs?
Re:Encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
You're kidding right?
Many businesses (MacDonalds and Starbucks, for example) operate open and free access points, and I like to have mine open and free too so my neighbours can access it if they so like. Heck, in some places, the ISP is encouraging consumers to have open access points (British Telecom, IIRC)!
If I were charged in such a way that it costs me more, and that bothers me, then I'll stop people using it. It's exactly the same as if I were running a web server (especially if it were at home).
Many of these open and free access points are simply 'Linksys' or something. How is anyone to know the difference what the intention of the owner is, or even where the owner is, let alone what their billing is like?
IMO, this issue is all about 'the norm'. Is it reasonable to expect an open access point to be used by anyone? Where I am living, it most certainly is.
Perhaps there should be a law to have Wifi routers labelled with a warning that anyone can access it unless they secure it. Then it's clear who's at fault (which, IMO, is the owner's fault for being ignorant).
Re:Is this really breaking the law? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
There are ways to isolate [netfilter.org] them and limit [luxik.cdi.cz] their bandwidth. Whether or not you'd call them "easy" is up to you.
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
WHY is is still illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I agree its wrong (Score:3, Interesting)